If progressive politicians and journalists want to advocate for redistribution of income via 70% tax rates on high income earners, then just do it. But don’t use the argument that “income tax rates on the rich used to be much higher in the past” as justification for it, since the top 1% paid around the same amount relative to income back then as they do now.
Furthermore, if you want to argue for wealth taxes on households with assets over $50 mm (as Elizabeth Warren now proposes), then just do it. But if you are going to base the rationale for such taxes on work done by Saez/Piketty/Zucman, be aware of limitations in their work, and pointed questions about their assumptions and methodology from the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Joint Committee on Taxation and professors at Columbia University.
By now I’m sure you’ve read articles on proposals for a 70% tax rate on income above certain thresholds. Progressive politicians and journalists have every right to advocate for such taxes as a way to redistribute income (to be clear, the US Federal income tax is already progressive, and remains so after adjusting for state and local taxes1). But when people base such measures on the notion that “we’re just returning to fairer tax rates that existed in the past”, this is pretty sloppy work, which is ironic since a lot of these individuals/articles blame others for distorting facts.
Yes, statutory tax rates on the top 1% of households used to be much higher. But this fact is almost useless without understanding what the rest of the tax code entailed regarding bracket levels2 and deductions. The CBO computes “effective tax rates”, which is a pretty simple concept: total taxes paid as a percentage of income. As shown in the first chart, when the top Federal statutory rate was 70% in 1979, effective income tax rates on the top 1% were roughly the same as they are today. Even Saez and Piketty (more on them later) show that effective tax rates on the top 1% were not much higher in the 1950’s when including all Federal, state and local income, payroll, property, excise and other taxes (second chart). Bottom line: history does not provide apples-to-apples precedent for 70% marginal tax rates, so people should stop saying it does3. Base your arguments on the future rather than on the past.
Wealth taxes. Senator Elizabeth Warren4 has announced a plan for a 2% annual “wealth tax” on household assets in excess of $50 mm (see Appendix on wealth tax constitutionality and possible de facto alternatives). As per a January Washington Post article, Warren’s plan is based on work done by Saez, Piketty and Zucman, some of whom are also advising Senator Warren directly. We have written about their work before, in September 20175. It turns out that wealth shares by income level are not easy to obtain, and can only be estimated using a lot of assumptions.
Economists at the Federal Reserve who also studied US wealth distribution issued a stark rebuttal of the Saez/Piketty analysis, expressing concern that little attention has been paid to their methodology or to the sensitivity of their results to changing assumptions6, and concluded that Saez’ methods can yield “improbable” results. Alternative approaches to deriving 1% wealth shares shown in the first chart also indicate high concentrations of wealth, but they may not have changed much at all since the 1960s, in contrast to the Saez/Piketty analysis.
Researchers have also taken another look at Saez’ work on income inequality. In another rebuttal, economists from the US Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation present a very different picture of income inequality than widely-cited Saez/Piketty results7, as shown in the 2nd chart. Treasury/JCT authors claim a more accurate measurement of income; remove distortions from changing tax laws affecting the number of filers; and expand the definition of income. They conclude by citing an increase in income inequality since 1960 that is just one tenth of Saez/Piketty findings. Here’s how the Treasury/JCT paper describes Saez’ use of unadjusted tax returns to derive income levels: “These results show that unadjusted tax return based measures present a distorted view of inequality trends, as incomes reported on tax returns are sensitive to changes in tax laws and ignore income sources outside the individual tax system.”
Appendix: On the constitutionality of wealth taxes and de facto alternatives
The first reaction many people have to idea of wealth taxes: “they’re probably unconstitutional”, since the 16th Amendment only sanctions income taxes, and prior Constitutional provisions preclude taxes on the states that are not apportioned back in the same ratio. However, some tax scholars have already identified de facto alternatives to a wealth tax using Wealth Integration Methods. The simple explanation: instead of taxing wealth directly, wealth is used as an input into income tax calculations to get to roughly the same place. This approach might seem just like a Wealth Tax, but a recent paper from a law professor at Ohio State discounts possible Constitutional objections to Wealth Integration Taxes, arguing that they are not precluded by the 16th Amendment, and that to reject them would require the Courts to overturn settled precedent11. The author goes so far as to say that since the Courts are likely to accept Wealth Integration Taxation methods, they might as well just allow Congress to tax wealth directly. Welcome to 2019. Likely candidates for a Wealth Integration Tax: deduction phase-outs based on wealth, and/or increasing marginal tax rates based on wealth levels. Furthermore, the definition of wealth could require liquid assets to be valued on a mark-to-market basis, subjecting taxpayers to de facto wealth taxes whether or not assets are sold; and for these households, income and capital gains tax rates will probably be unified at the same level.
2 For example, in 1955, the top tax bracket was applied at $3.5 mm in today’s dollars, compared to $466 k today.
3 Something that has changed since the 1960’s: the balance between entitlement spending and discretionary spending programs that fuel growth (job retraining, infrastructure, renewable energy R&D, etc). In the 1960’s, the Federal government spent $0.60 on entitlements for every dollar spent on discretionary programs. Currently, the government spends $3.30 per dollar, and is projected to spend $4.50 per dollar by 2025 (CBO).
4 Senator Warren also proposes something called the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would establish a “US Federal Office of US Corporations” that would be empowered to grant and revoke charters for public companies based on whether they generate a “general public benefit” and “a material positive impact on society.”
5 “A Revised Look at Wealth and Income Inequality”, Eye on the Market, September 5, 2017.
6 “Measuring Income and Wealth at the Top Using Administrative and Survey Data”, Bricker et al (Federal Reserve Board), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2016. For a similar critique of Saez wealth percentiles, see “What do we know about the evolution of top wealth shares in the US”, Kopczuk (Columbia), 2015.
7 “Using Tax Data to Measure Long-Term Trends in U.S. Income Inequality”, Auten (US Treasury) and Splinter (Joint Committee on Taxation), Dec 2016. According to Treasury/JCT authors, their analysis accounts for ~ 90% of total income, compared to 60%-70% for Saez/Piketty, and adjusts for distortions resulting from the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
8 Many topics assessed by the Post are not cut and dried facts, and require interpretations and judgments that not everyone will agree with (I didn’t). Even so, the spirit of what they found has been seconded by James Pfiffner (author of a dozen books on the Presidency and a Professor of Public Policy at conservative George Mason University), and George Edwards at Texas A&M (a political scientist who edits the scholarly journal Presidential Studies Quarterly).
Related Wash Post FactChecker topic: a NY congresswoman attacked the Post after it contradicted her claims on minimum wage workers, tweeting that the Post’s source served “corporate interests”. The study was actually from Jason Furman (Council of Economic Advisors under Obama). The Washington Post response: “Don’t always believe what you see on Twitter”. No one’s work is exempt from derision if it does not support the desired policy outcome.
9 President Obama repeatedly said, “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it” in regards to the Affordable Care Act. PolitiFact bestowed the 2013 “Lie of the Year” honor to Obama for this statement.
11 “A Constitutional Wealth Tax”, A. Glogower (Ohio State Moritz College of Law), January 2019. Examples cited by the author of wealth taxes that already exist: the 2017 tax bill, which disallows corporate income tax deductions of FDIC Deposit Insurance Payments based on the amount of bank assets, and also applies different tax rates to foreign sourced income based on the amount of a company’s qualified asset investments; and Section 1202, which allows capital gains tax exclusions based on the amount of qualified small business assets.
Learn more about becoming a J.P. Morgan Private Bank client.
Please tell us about yourself, and our team will contact you.
This material is for information purposes only. The views, opinions, estimates and strategies expressed herein constitutes Michael Cembalest’s judgment based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice, and may differ from those expressed by other areas of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPM”). This information in no way constitutes J.P. Morgan Research and should not be treated as such.
Non-Reliance: Certain information contained in this material is believed to be reliable; however, JPM does not represent or warrant its accuracy, reliability or completeness, or accept any liability for any loss or damage (whether direct or indirect) arising out of the use of all or any part of this material. No representation or warranty should be made with regard to any computations, graphs, tables, diagrams or commentary in this material, which are provided for illustration/reference purposes only. JPM assumes no duty to update any information in this material in the event that such information changes. Any projected results and risks are based solely on hypothetical examples cited, and actual results and risks will vary depending on specific circumstances. Forward-looking statements should not be considered as guarantees or predictions of future events.
Nothing in this document shall be construed as giving rise to any duty of care owed to, or advisory relationship with, you or any third party. Nothing in this document shall be regarded as an offer, solicitation, recommendation or advice (whether financial, accounting, legal, tax or other) given by JPM and/or its officers or employees, irrespective of whether or not such communication was given at your request. JPM and its affiliates and employees do not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any financial transactions.
General Risks & Considerations: Any views, strategies or products discussed in this material may not be appropriate for all individuals and are subject to risks. Investors may get back less than they invested, and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Asset allocation does not guarantee a profit or protect against loss. Nothing in this material should be relied upon in isolation for the purpose of making an investment decision. You are urged to consider carefully whether the services, products, asset classes (e.g. equities, fixed income, alternative investments, commodities, etc.) or strategies discussed are suitable to your needs. You must also consider the objectives, risks, charges, and expenses associated with an investment service, product or strategy prior to making an investment decision. For this and more complete information, including discussion of your goals/situation, contact your JPM representative.
JPM may hold a position for itself or our other clients which may not be consistent with the information, opinions, estimates, investment strategies or views expressed in this document. JPM or its affiliates may hold a position or act as market maker in the financial instruments of any issuer discussed herein or act as an underwriter, placement agent, advisor or lender to such issuer.
Legal Entities and Regulatory Information: In the United States, bank deposit accounts and related services, such as checking, savings and bank lending, are offered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its affiliates (collectively "JPMCB") offer investment products, which may include bank managed accounts and custody, as part of its trust and fiduciary services. Other investment products and services, such as brokerage and advisory accounts, are offered through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”), a member of FINRA and SIPC. Annuities are made available through Chase Insurance Agency, Inc. (CIA),a licensed insurance agency, doing business as Chase Insurance Agency Services, Inc. in Florida. JPMCB, JPMS and CIA are affiliated companies under the common control of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Products not available in all states.
In Luxembourg this material is issued by J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A (JPMBL), with registered office at European Bank and Business Centre, 6 route de Treves, L-2633, Senningerberg, Luxembourg. R.C.S Luxembourg B10.958. Authorised and regulated by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) and jointly supervised by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the CSSF. J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A. is authorized as a credit institution in accordance with the Law of 5th April 1993. In the United Kingdom, this material is issued by J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A– London Branch. Prior to Brexit, (Brexit meaning that the UK leaves the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, or, if later, loses its ability to passport financial services between the UK and the remainder of the EEA), J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A– London Branch is subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority are available from us on request. In the event of Brexit, in the UK, J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A– London Branch is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority, subject to regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and limited regulation by the Prudential Regulation Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Prudential Regulation Authority are available from us on request. In Spain, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A., Sucursal en España, with registered office at Paseo de la Castellana, 31, 28046 Madrid, Spain. J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A., Sucursal en España is registered under number 1516 within the administrative registry of the Bank of Spain and supervised by the Spanish Securities Market Commission (CNMV). In Germany, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A., Frankfurt Branch, registered office at Taunustor 1 (TaunusTurm), 60310 Frankfurt, Germany, jointly supervised by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) and the European Central Bank (ECB), and in certain areas also supervised by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin). In Italy, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg S.A– Milan Branch, registered office at Via Cantena Adalberto 4, Milan 20121, Italy and regulated by Bank of Italy and the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB). . In addition, this material may be distributed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMCB”), Paris branch, which is regulated by the French banking authorities Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution and Autorité des Marchés Financiers or by J.P. Morgan (Suisse) SA, which is regulated in Switzerland by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA).
In Hong Kong, this material is distributed by JPMCB, Hong Kong branch. JPMCB, Hong Kong branch is regulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, we will cease to use your personal data for our marketing purposes without charge if you so request. In Singapore, this material is distributed by JPMCB, Singapore branch. JPMCB, Singapore branch is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Dealing and advisory services and discretionary investment management services are provided to you by JPMCB, Hong Kong/Singapore branch (as notified to you). Banking and custody services are provided to you by JPMCB Singapore Branch. The contents of this document have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong, Singapore or any other jurisdictions. For materials which constitute product advertisement under the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act, this advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. You are advised to exercise caution in relation to this document. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice.
With respect to countries in Latin America, the distribution of this material may be restricted in certain jurisdictions. We may offer and/or sell to you securities or other financial instruments which may not be registered under, and are not the subject of a public offering under, the securities or other financial regulatory laws of your home country. Such securities or instruments are offered and/or sold to you on a private basis only. Any communication by us to you regarding such securities or instruments, including without limitation the delivery of a prospectus, term sheet or other offering document, is not intended by us as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or instruments in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or a solicitation is unlawful. Furthermore, such securities or instruments may be subject to certain regulatory and/or contractual restrictions on subsequent transfer by you, and you are solely responsible for ascertaining and complying with such restrictions. To the extent this content makes reference to a fund, the Fund may not be publicly offered in any Latin American country, without previous registration of such fund´s securities in compliance with the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction. Public offering of any security, including the shares of the Fund, without previous registration at Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission – CVM is completely prohibited. Some products or services contained in the materials might not be currently provided by the Brazilian and Mexican platforms.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMCBNA) (ABN 43 074 112 011/AFS Licence No: 238367) is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Material provided by JPMCBNA in Australia is to “wholesale clients” only. For the purposes of this paragraph the term “wholesale client” has the meaning given in section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Please inform us if you are not a Wholesale Client now or if you cease to be a Wholesale Client at any time in the future. JPMS is a registered foreign company (overseas) (ARBN 109293610) incorporated in Delaware, U.S.A. Under Australian financial services licensing requirements, carrying on a financial services business in Australia requires a financial service provider, such as J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL), unless an exemption applies. JPMS is exempt from the requirement to hold an AFSL under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in respect of financial services it provides to you, and is regulated by the SEC, FINRA and CFTC under US laws, which differ from Australian laws. Material provided by JPMS in Australia is to “wholesale clients” only. The information provided in this material is not intended to be, and must not be, distributed or passed on, directly or indirectly, to any other class of persons in Australia. For the purposes of this paragraph the term “wholesale client” has the meaning given in section 761G of the Act. Please inform us immediately if you are not a Wholesale Client now or if you cease to be a Wholesale Client at any time in the future. This material has not been prepared specifically for Australian investors. It:
References in this report to “J.P. Morgan” are to JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates worldwide.
This material is intended for your personal use and should not be circulated to or used by any other person, or duplicated for non-personal use, without our permission. If you have any questions or no longer wish to receive these communications, please contact your J.P. Morgan representative.
© 2019 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved.
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS ARE: • NOT FDIC INSURED • NOT A DEPOSIT OR OTHER OBLIGATION OF, OR GUARANTEED BY, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES • SUBJECT TO INVESTMENT RISKS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE LOSS OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT INVESTED
Bank deposit products, such as checking, savings and bank lending and related services are offered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC. Not a commitment to lend. All extensions of credit are subject to credit approval.